Issues of morality shuts Christians up.

[newpolitics]

Then why do you insist I prove that which I have faith in?

Or are we playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said?

Ahh, so we ARE playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said.

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party.​

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of support for Christians voting there. I do see a lot of regret that it's allowed to happen.

I haven't made any assumptions I haven't validated.

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

No?

Then you're just masturbating, aren't you?

I don't need to support you in your right to vote. The constitution grants you that, and you don't need me to tell you "its okay." I only need to not try and take it away.

"Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party."

Yeah... I'm just not seeing it. You're reading into what you want to. All I was saying is, it is irrational, religious beliefs which are translating into real actions that effect others, because I was defending myself against the question of why I attack christians. Here, we have christians trying to undo the first amendment. Nowhere do I ever mention, explicitly, that I wish to take away the rights of others to vote.

Why don't you give us an example there, skippy? I want to see an example of the real actions based on irrational religious beliefs that are affecting others.

Nope. I'm done with you. I already gave two examples right above, but you are too arrogant to read anything because you see no reason to actually follow discussion, and then demand information like your a godamn queen after its already been said. You are an idiot!

 

[newpolitics]

Then why do you insist I prove that which I have faith in?

Or are we playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said?

Ahh, so we ARE playing The Liberal Didn't Say What He Said.

Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party.​

Yeah, I'm not seeing a lot of support for Christians voting there. I do see a lot of regret that it's allowed to happen.

I haven't made any assumptions I haven't validated.

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

No?

Then you're just masturbating, aren't you?

I don't need to support you in your right to vote. The constitution grants you that, and you don't need me to tell you "its okay." I only need to not try and take it away.

"Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party."

Yeah... I'm just not seeing it. You're reading into what you want to. All I was saying is, it is irrational, religious beliefs which are translating into real actions that effect others, because I was defending myself against the question of why I attack christians. Here, we have christians trying to undo the first amendment.

No, we don't.

Nowhere do I ever mention, explicitly, that I wish to take away the rights of others to vote.

Of course you don't say so explicitly.

But it's there. You're just pissed you didn't hide it better. Looks like Christians aren't as stupid as you pretend they are, huh?

Again, to highlight your failure:

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

Its not there. You want it to be there, but, its simply not, and this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me.

 

[daveman]

I don't need to support you in your right to vote. The constitution grants you that, and you don't need me to tell you "its okay." I only need to not try and take it away.

"Because Christians believe something that influences their actions, such as trying to tell school boards that evolution should not be taught, or infringing on women's rights to choose, but mostly, because they vote, and usually only for other Christians, which is a huge problem today with the conservative party."

Yeah... I'm just not seeing it. You're reading into what you want to. All I was saying is, it is irrational, religious beliefs which are translating into real actions that effect others, because I was defending myself against the question of why I attack christians. Here, we have christians trying to undo the first amendment.

No, we don't.

Nowhere do I ever mention, explicitly, that I wish to take away the rights of others to vote.

Of course you don't say so explicitly.

But it's there. You're just pissed you didn't hide it better. Looks like Christians aren't as stupid as you pretend they are, huh?

Again, to highlight your failure:

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

Its not there. You want it to be there, but, its simply not, and this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me.

Oh, you mean like you've done with me this whole discussion?

My, my, don't you think you're special. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all, would you?

 

[newpolitics]

No, we don't.

Of course you don't say so explicitly.

But it's there. You're just pissed you didn't hide it better. Looks like Christians aren't as stupid as you pretend they are, huh?

Again, to highlight your failure:

Has your childish "Neener neener, beleevers are STOOpid!!" act convinced anyone to abandon their faith?

Its not there. You want it to be there, but, its simply not, and this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me.

Oh, you mean like you've done with me this whole discussion?

My, my, don't you think you're special. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all, would you?

Have I, Dave? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Try giving an example instead of frothing at the mouth. I haven't done any such thing as you claim. I never asserted your position for you, persistently, despite explicit claims to the contrary. You are an arrogant bastard. That is the problem.

 

[daveman]

Its not there. You want it to be there, but, its simply not, and this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me.

Oh, you mean like you've done with me this whole discussion?

My, my, don't you think you're special. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all, would you?

Have I, Dave? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Try giving an example instead of frothing at the mouth. I haven't done any such thing as you claim. I never asserted your position for you, persistently, despite explicit claims to the contrary. You are an arrogant bastard. That is the problem.

Does this ring a bell?

Then don't assert that atheism is a faith if you aren't willing to demonstrate why.

I made no such assertion. So I guess "this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me."

Surprise me. Acknowledge this.

 

[newpolitics]

Oh, you mean like you've done with me this whole discussion?

My, my, don't you think you're special. If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all, would you?

Have I, Dave? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Try giving an example instead of frothing at the mouth. I haven't done any such thing as you claim. I never asserted your position for you, persistently, despite explicit claims to the contrary. You are an arrogant bastard. That is the problem.

Does this ring a bell?

Then don't assert that atheism is a faith if you aren't willing to demonstrate why.

I made no such assertion. So I guess "this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me."

Surprise me. Acknowledge this.

Actually, I'll admit to making a mistake here. Koshergrl made the assertion that atheism is a faith, and I got confused between your posts and conflated them, erroneously. It was an honest mistake, and I should have double checked it.

See how that works? I made a mistake and I own up to it. That's what adults do. I didn't do it maliciously and contrary to all evidence, like you. Upon realizing I made a mistake, I recognize it. Besides, these two examples don't even compare. You continuously asserted my own position. I erroneously believed you made a false assertion about the characteristics of athiesm. You're still a stubborn asshole who has to be right all the time. You are absolutely no fun to debate.

 

[koshergrl]

Atheism is a faith. Atheists work hard to win converts, and it has no more logical base than any other faith.

 

[koshergrl]

" The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions. The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential."


"

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government."


Atheism: A religion

 

[newpolitics]

" The framework set forth by Ninian Smart,6 commonly known as the Seven Dimensions of Religion, is widely accepted by anthropologists and researchers of religion as broadly covering the various aspects of religion, without focusing on things unique to specific religions. The seven dimensions proposed by Smart are narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material. Not every religion has every dimension, nor are they all equally important within an individual religion. Smart even argues that the “secularisation” of western society is actually a shift of focus from the doctrinal and ritual to the experiential."


"

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.
Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.
The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.
Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government."


Atheism: A religion

I'm not going to debate you any further. I told you this. I am not sure why you persist.

 

[MikeHoncho]

Why don't you demonstrate to me how atheism is a faith-based position? Go ahead. I can't wait for this one. This goes to you too Koshergrl. A challenge, using some semblance of logical argument, if you can.

I feel no obligation to defend an argument I haven't made, your petulant foot-stamping notwithstanding.

However, to demand a person of faith provide proof of what they believe in belies an utter ignorance of the concept of faith.

Then don't assert that atheism is a faith if you aren't willing to demonstrate why.

As I said, faith is a belief that can't be backed by evidence, as you are demonstrating right now. You can not demonstrate a god in any way, and that would be okay, were it not for the fact that you vote.

not always true. I have faith that an infinite being was the first cause. its completely logical to think so, especially but not limited to, if you understand the law of causality.

the majority of the science community agrees that the universe is finite ( had a beginning and will have an end) if thats the case then somehting must have always been. the difference is Christians believe its God, non Christians are on an ever changing mission of what they think it is.

 

[GreatestIam]

[
the majority of the science community agrees that the universe is finite ( had a beginning and will have an end) if thats the case then somehting must have always been. the difference is Christians believe its God, non Christians are on an ever changing mission of what they think it is.

Science is self-correcting. One of it's assets.

Religions do not self-correct as they never admit their mistakes, and just keep going in the wrong direction.

Regards
DL

 

[koshergrl]

Have I, Dave? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Try giving an example instead of frothing at the mouth. I haven't done any such thing as you claim. I never asserted your position for you, persistently, despite explicit claims to the contrary. You are an arrogant bastard. That is the problem.

Does this ring a bell?

Then don't assert that atheism is a faith if you aren't willing to demonstrate why.

I made no such assertion. So I guess "this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me."

Surprise me. Acknowledge this.

Actually, I'll admit to making a mistake here. Koshergrl made the assertion that atheism is a faith, and I got confused between your posts and conflated them, erroneously. It was an honest mistake, and I should have double checked it.

See how that works? I made a mistake and I own up to it. That's what adults do. I didn't do it maliciously and contrary to all evidence, like you. Upon realizing I made a mistake, I recognize it. Besides, these two examples don't even compare. You continuously asserted my own position. I erroneously believed you made a false assertion about the characteristics of athiesm. You're still a stubborn asshole who has to be right all the time. You are absolutely no fun to debate.

It's never fun to lose, is it?

I don't have to be right all the time. I just happen to be right.

 

[daveman]

Have I, Dave? Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. Try giving an example instead of frothing at the mouth. I haven't done any such thing as you claim. I never asserted your position for you, persistently, despite explicit claims to the contrary. You are an arrogant bastard. That is the problem.

Does this ring a bell?

Then don't assert that atheism is a faith if you aren't willing to demonstrate why.

I made no such assertion. So I guess "this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me."

Surprise me. Acknowledge this.

Actually, I'll admit to making a mistake here. Koshergrl made the assertion that atheism is a faith, and I got confused between your posts and conflated them, erroneously. It was an honest mistake, and I should have double checked it.

See how that works? I made a mistake and I own up to it. That's what adults do. I didn't do it maliciously and contrary to all evidence, like you. Upon realizing I made a mistake, I recognize it. Besides, these two examples don't even compare. You continuously asserted my own position. I erroneously believed you made a false assertion about the characteristics of athiesm. You're still a stubborn asshole who has to be right all the time. You are absolutely no fun to debate.

Tissue?

 

[newpolitics]

Does this ring a bell?

​

I made no such assertion. So I guess "this makes you an asshole for Putting words in my mouth and then being presumptuous enough to state my position for me."

Surprise me. Acknowledge this.

Actually, I'll admit to making a mistake here. Koshergrl made the assertion that atheism is a faith, and I got confused between your posts and conflated them, erroneously. It was an honest mistake, and I should have double checked it.

See how that works? I made a mistake and I own up to it. That's what adults do. I didn't do it maliciously and contrary to all evidence, like you. Upon realizing I made a mistake, I recognize it. Besides, these two examples don't even compare. You continuously asserted my own position. I erroneously believed you made a false assertion about the characteristics of athiesm. You're still a stubborn asshole who has to be right all the time. You are absolutely no fun to debate.

Tissue?

I'm not complaining, just declaring, but you continue to demonstrate why you are a piece of shit. How old are you, by the way? I seem to think you are an older male, but you act like a younger one. I am confused.

 

[newpolitics]

I feel no obligation to defend an argument I haven't made, your petulant foot-stamping notwithstanding.

However, to demand a person of faith provide proof of what they believe in belies an utter ignorance of the concept of faith.

Then don't assert that atheism is a faith if you aren't willing to demonstrate why.

As I said, faith is a belief that can't be backed by evidence, as you are demonstrating right now. You can not demonstrate a god in any way, and that would be okay, were it not for the fact that you vote.

not always true. I have faith that an infinite being was the first cause. its completely logical to think so, especially but not limited to, if you understand the law of causality.

the majority of the science community agrees that the universe is finite ( had a beginning and will have an end) if thats the case then somehting must have always been. the difference is Christians believe its God, non Christians are on an ever changing mission of what they think it is.

the law of causality can only exist in space and time. outside of space-time, or before the big bang, the law of causality does not follow, necessarily. we simply can not know. Therefore, it is illogical to assert that a first cause must exist. If there was in fact, a first cause, it does not mean it was the judeo-christian god. That is a leap.

Something may be able to come from nothing, we just don't know, hence why the cosmological argument for the existence of god is unsubstantiated, because we have never witnessed or having any concept of what "nothing" even means or would look like.

 

[daveman]

Actually, I'll admit to making a mistake here. Koshergrl made the assertion that atheism is a faith, and I got confused between your posts and conflated them, erroneously. It was an honest mistake, and I should have double checked it.

See how that works? I made a mistake and I own up to it. That's what adults do. I didn't do it maliciously and contrary to all evidence, like you. Upon realizing I made a mistake, I recognize it. Besides, these two examples don't even compare. You continuously asserted my own position. I erroneously believed you made a false assertion about the characteristics of athiesm. You're still a stubborn asshole who has to be right all the time. You are absolutely no fun to debate.

Tissue?

I'm not complaining, just declaring, but you continue to demonstrate why you are a piece of shit. How old are you, by the way? I seem to think you are an older male, but you act like a younger one. I am confused.

Yes, you seem to be confused by a great many things.

 

[Hollie]

It's a misunderstanding and a mis-label to define atheism as a religion. Religions are frequently associated with various customs, traditions, rituals and belief systems. These belief systems often have a hierarchy of individuals who serve to promote, define and interpret the belief system as well as to delineate the path one takes toward approaching one or more gods. Often within such a hierarchy, the person at the top of the hierarchical structure is consider closer to the gods than other mortal men.

Atheism has none of the hierarchical structure of religions. Similarly, atheism has no rituals, customs, practices or beliefs that define organized religion.

 

[GreatestIam]

+ 1

Regards
DL

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheism is a faith. Atheists work hard to win converts, and it has no more logical base than any other faith.

Once you point out reality to them the conversation dries up. That is what happened in the creationist thread. I think most of them saw their secular views don't fit with nature.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's a misunderstanding and a mis-label to define atheism as a religion. Religions are frequently associated with various customs, traditions, rituals and belief systems. These belief systems often have a hierarchy of individuals who serve to promote, define and interpret the belief system as well as to delineate the path one takes toward approaching one or more gods. Often within such a hierarchy, the person at the top of the hierarchical structure is consider closer to the gods than other mortal men.

Atheism has none of the hierarchical structure of religions. Similarly, atheism has no rituals, customs, practices or beliefs that define organized religion.

Your customs and traditions are to loathe believers and real science. Your rituals are to bash and attack everything associated to God. You do have a belief system everything came from nothing. You do have your priests operating in the courts,the schools, on T.V. and Radio. Your hierarchical men are closer and know more about the natural processes which created everything.

Wrong on the last sentence as well.